• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Soda Tax

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
This is so typical of the ignorance of the lefties.

All taxes on "products" are paid by the consumers of those products, ergo, the tax is on the consumer.
Click to expand...


How dismissive and presumptive of you. If read properly, it's clear that the original statement made was referring to how sugar needs to be addressed IN the products themselves. I read nothing signifying a lack of intelligence...at least not by Orius.

To make it even clearer for you, legislation should be put in place that would limit/regulate the amount of sugar/high fructose corn syrup permissible in foods and beverages.

Perhaps if you slow down and read the posts they'll make more sense. ;)

-k
 
kjyoung said:
How dismissive and presumptive of you. If read properly, it's clear that the original statement made was referring to how sugar needs to be addressed IN the products themselves. I read nothing signifying a lack of intelligence...at least not by Orius.
Click to expand...

His ignorance isn't necessarily dependent upon his intelligence.

kjyoung said:
To make it even clearer for you, legislation should be put in place that would limit/regulate the amount of sugar/high fructose corn syrup permissible in foods and beverages.
Click to expand...

Why?

What business is it of yours?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why?

What business is it of yours?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, let me see...

1. Public Forum
2. Free Speech
3. My own opinion and ability to voice it
4. Dislike/distaste for mouthy conservatives who point fingers and label others at every possible opportunity.
5. Felt like responding :mrgreen:

-k
 
kjyoung said:
Hmmm, let me see...

1. Public Forum
2. Free Speech
3. My own opinion and ability to voice it
4. Dislike/distaste for mouthy conservatives who point fingers and label others at every possible opportunity.
5. Felt like responding :mrgreen:

-k
Click to expand...

Uhhh, no, that's not what I meant. Anyone can make in idiotic comment on the net. I mean, there's no law against Lefties posting.

What business is it of yours that some beverage firms use more or less sugar and corn syrup than others, and where would the government derive the authority to interfere?
 
kjyoung said:
legislation should be put in place that would limit/regulate the amount of sugar/high fructose corn syrup permissible in foods and beverages.

-k
Click to expand...

Why? Shouldn't it be up to the people to decide (by either supporting and buying the product or not supporting and not buying) said product if they feel there is too much corn syrup in it?

Do you feel the government knows best?
 
Redress said:
This is just a logical extension of sin taxes. If you are going to tax certain behaviors because they are somehow worse than others(but still legal), then you should tax all products that are in some ways harmful. Tobacco, alcohol, sugar, caffeine, red meat, and so on.
Click to expand...

OR.... :) Ban Excise Taxes all together.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Uhhh, no, that's not what I meant. Anyone can make in idiotic comment on the net. I mean, there's no law against Lefties posting.

What business is it of yours that some beverage firms use more or less sugar and corn syrup than others, and where would the government derive the authority to interfere?
Click to expand...

What business is it of mine? The right as a consumer to know what is in the products I buy.
 
danarhea said:
What business is it of mine? The right as a consumer to know what is in the products I buy.
Click to expand...

And you're telling me Dana that there's somehow not a difference between knowing what is in the products you buy and the government telling them exactly how much of a particular substance they're alowed to use in their drink, specifically something like Sugar which while CAN be problematic is hardly on the level of things typically regulated by the Feds?
 
Zyphlin said:
And you're telling me Dana that there's somehow not a difference between knowing what is in the products you buy and the government telling them exactly how much of a particular substance they're alowed to use in their drink, specifically something like Sugar which while CAN be problematic is hardly on the level of things typically regulated by the Feds?
Click to expand...

The government should not be in the business of regulating what ingredients are in which products. However, I do believe that whatever is put in products should be labeled on the products, and I am OK with that kind of regulation.
 
kjyoung said:
First, not everyone who drinks soda/pop/coke/whatever is a "fattie" :roll:.
Click to expand...

And not everybody who smokes will get lung cancer. But hey with 66% of this country being overweight I could care less about the insignificant percentage of healthy people who drink coke and won't drag our health care system down the way their heavier counter parts will.

As for taxing the soft drinks, I have no issue with it at all...so long as alcohol gets a tax increase as well.
Click to expand...

Sure? I don't drink.

I'm one of those nasty smokers, and yep, I still smoke, tax hike or not. However, I now roll my own because it's far cheaper. I don't dispute that smoking is a horrible habit. I don't dispute taxes being raised on it. What I dispute is that tobacco is taxed routinely to fund so many government wants and needs. I think it's about time other products, especially beer and liquor, feel the tax axe as smokers have been for years. I think a little fairness across the tax board would meet less criticism, but that's just my opinion.


-k
Click to expand...

Great. Let's tax all that nasty ****.
 
Hatuey said:
And not everybody who smokes will get lung cancer. But hey with 66% of this country being overweight I could care less about the insignificant percentage of healthy people who drink coke and won't drag our health care system down the way their heavier counter parts will.

Sure? I don't drink.

Great. Let's tax all that nasty ****.
Click to expand...

So lets see....

We need to put a tax on red meat. It contributes to obesity and heart disease so while not everyone will have those problems some will, increase tax on it.

Eggs contribute to issues of cholesterol, tax it.

Likewise, heart disease and cholesterol for certain types of pork products, tax it.

Anything that has sugar in it. So Soft Drinks, any kind of pastry, any kind of jelly or syrup for the most part, any kind of candy, most cereals.

High sodium has also been known to produce some bad health affects. So chips, crackers, any frozen food, soups.

High Starch contact and lots of carbs is linked to some issues and obesisty as well. Goodbye most potato products, rice, pasta.

So essentially, fresh fruits and vegetables and certain lean cuts of chicken and pork can be done with normal taxes. Everything else desperately needs severe taxing to save us from ourselves.
 
Zyphlin said:
So lets see....

We need to put a tax on red meat. It contributes to obesity and heart disease so while not everyone will have those problems some will, increase tax on it.

Eggs contribute to issues of cholesterol, tax it.

Likewise, heart disease and cholesterol for certain types of pork products, tax it.

Anything that has sugar in it. So Soft Drinks, any kind of pastry, any kind of jelly or syrup for the most part, any kind of candy, most cereals.

High sodium has also been known to produce some bad health affects. So chips, crackers, any frozen food, soups.

High Starch contact and lots of carbs is linked to some issues and obesisty as well. Goodbye most potato products, rice, pasta.

So essentially, fresh fruits and vegetables and certain lean cuts of chicken and pork can be done with normal taxes. Everything else desperately needs severe taxing to save us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

Its for the children!!

Chickens and pigs contribute to global warming, they need to be taxed too.
 
Zyphlin said:
So lets see....

We need to put a tax on red meat. It contributes to obesity and heart disease so while not everyone will have those problems some will, increase tax on it.
Click to expand...

Great. I can't have it anymore.

Eggs contribute to issues of cholesterol, tax it.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Likewise, heart disease and cholesterol for certain types of pork products, tax it.
Click to expand...

sure.

Anything that has sugar in it. So Soft Drinks, any kind of pastry, any kind of jelly or syrup for the most part, any kind of candy, most cereals.
Click to expand...

I'm still on this. Sure.

High sodium has also been known to produce some bad health affects. So chips, crackers, any frozen food, soups.
Click to expand...

Still with ya.

High Starch contact and lots of carbs is linked to some issues and obesisty as well. Goodbye most potato products, rice, pasta.
Click to expand...

Great.

So essentially, fresh fruits and vegetables and certain lean cuts of chicken and pork can be done with normal taxes. Everything else desperately needs severe taxing to save us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

Have you tried buying organic lately, kid? If they weren't being taxed already. They might as well have been. But hey. Sure. Go for it. :)
 
Hatuey said:
Great. I can't have it anymore.

Sure.

sure.

I'm still on this. Sure.

Still with ya.

Great.

Have you tried buying organic lately, kid? If they weren't being taxed already. They might as well have been. But hey. Sure. Go for it. :)
Click to expand...

Hey, at least you're very consistant in your nanny state extreme left view on this issue.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What business is it of yours that some beverage firms use more or less sugar and corn syrup than others, and where would the government derive the authority to interfere?
Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:
Why? Shouldn't it be up to the people to decide (by either supporting and buying the product or not supporting and not buying) said product if they feel there is too much corn syrup in it?

Do you feel the government knows best?
Click to expand...

I never said the government knows best. I said legislation on the amounts of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and sugars should be made.

Unless someone eats from their own garden, never has a meal out (and not just at a fast food place, but any restaurant), and never buys most pre-packaged foods or beverages he/she is in danger of health issues related to cholesterol and diabetes. Why? Because HFCS is not only a sweetener, but a preservative as well. This rings like a cash register bell to manufacturers because it's relatively cheep for them to use and it extends the shelf-life of their product. Cha-ching!

Food manufacturers have been using high-fructose corn syrup since the 1970s, and over the years consumption has increased at a ridiculous rate, with uptake far exceeding changes in any other food, or food group.
Click to expand...

So, why is high-fructose corn syrup so common? Well, it is cheaper than regular sugar, and it helps to extend shelf life of products. Therefore, it's a manufacturers dream come true, and hence why it's found in so many foods and drinks.
Click to expand...

Studies have been done showing that there is a link between the increase in diabetes and the increase in the use of HFCS in our foods. As the quote above states, this has been going on since the 70s and lo and behold...

Levels of obesity and late onset diabetes have risen slowly over the last century and accelerated in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

I believe there is correlation there between the two. Not everything can be blamed on inactivity. Hell, as a nation we've become more and more inactive since the invention of the automobile and TV, which were both well more than 40 years ago. These things can attribute to some of the increase over the last century, but I don't buy they are the cause of the acceleration "in the last 40 years".

But when Liu broke down the figures into proteins, fats and carbohydrates, a different picture emerged. Neither fat consumption nor protein seem to be the root cause of the problem.

Instead, the diabetes rise best matches dropping fibre consumption and escalating consumption of corn syrup, a ubiquitous sweetener in today's processed foods. "It is quite striking," says nutritional scientist Cyril Kendall of the University of Toronto, Canada.
Click to expand...

Article Sources:
Cholesterol - How to Reduce Your Intake of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
Biology News: Corn syrup linked to diabetes

-k
 
kjyoung said:
I never said the government knows best. I said legislation on the amounts of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and sugars should be made.
Click to expand...

Which means that you think government knows best to legislate HFCS

kjyoung said:
Unless someone eats from their own garden, never has a meal out (and not just at a fast food place, but any restaurant), and never buys most pre-packaged foods or beverages he/she is in danger of health issues related to cholesterol and diabetes. Why? Because HFCS is not only a sweetener, but a preservative as well. This rings like a cash register bell to manufacturers because it's relatively cheep for them to use and it extends the shelf-life of their product. Cha-ching!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but yes, you can still eat what is out there with HFCS, however, you have to watch your PORTIONS and exercise on a regular basis.

You don't have to eat EVERYTHING they give you on the plate in ONE eating.

When I go to a restaurant, they are usually giving me anywhere between 3-4 servings.

I eat one serving, and get the rest to go along with regularly exercising.

I used to be obese myself, and I lost all my weight by just watching my portions and how many calories I was in taking along with exercising regularly which just consisted of me doing some pushups/situps and walks.

The problem is people have become too lazy. That is their problem and not HFCS. What's next, legislating the portions of food because people are too dumb to do it themselves?
 
kjyoung said:
I never said the government knows best. I said legislation on the amounts of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and sugars should be made.

Unless someone eats from their own garden, never has a meal out (and not just at a fast food place, but any restaurant), and never buys most pre-packaged foods or beverages he/she is in danger of health issues related to cholesterol and diabetes. Why? Because HFCS is not only a sweetener, but a preservative as well. This rings like a cash register bell to manufacturers because it's relatively cheep for them to use and it extends the shelf-life of their product. Cha-ching!

Studies have been done showing that there is a link between the increase in diabetes and the increase in the use of HFCS in our foods. As the quote above states, this has been going on since the 70s and lo and behold...

-k
Click to expand...

Actually the reason they use HFCS now is because of farm subsidies on corn.
The farmers get paid to grow it and then they get paid again when they sell it.

It makes it extra cheap compared to sugar.

Sugar is way better for you than HFCS could ever be.

As soon as I stopped drinking soda with HFCS, my digestive problems went away like magic. It's very telling.
 
Burning Giraffe said:
Wall Street Journal

Has anyone seen the movie Demolition Man? Well, in it, every kind of food that was deemed unhealthy was made illegal. That won't happen here, but as the government assumes responsibility for our health care, you can damn well bet that anything deemed unhealthy is going to be taxed to death. If Americans don't start fighting Liberalism in this country, it will be too late. Americans have gotten weak and lazy, primed to enter into that fashionable European decay... or what I like to call Societal Rot. They will weaken every aspect of the American Economy and destroy the foundations of liberty for shorter work weeks, free health care, federally financed retirement, and less personal responsibility. If we don't have the stomach to take on these cultural problems manifesting themselves as a liberal political movement, we are going to go down with the ship.
Click to expand...

Hold onto your seats people; this is just the very beginning of many new taxes to come.

In an effort to avoid the political backlash Liberal Democrats would receive if they honestly raise income taxes, which is merely an inevitability to pay for trillions in excess spending, you will find many more of these desperate sneaky measures in an effort to raise sufficient revenue to pay for this vast new Liberal agenda.

But alas, in the end, most of this will end up making jobs even more scarce; perhaps as scarce as profits are these days.

Burning Giraffe said:
If the Republican Party cannot find it within themselves to stand upon firm philosophical convictions and meaningful mores than a new Party must evolve to supplant the decrepit soon to be corpse of the GOP.
Click to expand...

The Republicans can do NOTHING to stop ANYTHING Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to do; the American voters made sure of that in 2006 and 2008. Gotta love them informed voters don't you? :rofl
 
I am all for taxing things that have a bad effect on society. (because the social cost and personal cost of certain things are different. Such as a tax on harmful pollution NOT CO2 makes the free market work better.)


A tax on soda is bad though, because the harmful effect only effects the person that uses it.

Unlike pot and tobbacco which either has second hand smoke or may increase the chances of someone harming someone else, we aren't hurt by other people being unhealthy.
 
kjyoung said:
Three cheers for rolling your own!! :2dancing:

-k
Click to expand...

yeah, 3 cheers, Dana, hope you are setting aside the money you save rolling your own so you can afford the Oxygen bottles...:2razz::roll:
My 59 year old brother quit last year, VA doctors told him to quit and they will continue to treat him, or go home and die. He quit cold turkey.....
Except for looking like he is 10 years older than me instead of 4 years younger, he is starting to look healthy again....
I think he rolled his own, don't know how he could have afforded his habit on what little disability the Navy gives him...
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
I am all for taxing things that have a bad effect on society. (because the social cost and personal cost of certain things are different. Such as a tax on harmful pollution NOT CO2 makes the free market work better.)

A tax on soda is bad though, because the harmful effect only effects the person that uses it.

Unlike pot and tobbacco which either has second hand smoke or may increase the chances of someone harming someone else, we aren't hurt by other people being unhealthy.
Click to expand...

No surprise here; most Liberals feel this way; got Freedom? :rofl
 
UtahBill said:
as for productive class, the very rich are often not producing anything, just living off the productivity of others.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have limited knowledge of Capital formation and risk taking. It explains much of your naive Liberal Socialist notions.

UtahBill said:
it is very good for an individual's economics to live on less, but it plays havoc with macroeconomics. the govt depends on us being consumers, and if enough of us minimize our consumption, it will be a long and messy period of adjustment for the nations economy...
Click to expand...

Based on your comments in this forum, it is obvious that you have limited grasp of economic concepts and it is ironic that you quote them in such an uninformed way.

Good lord, no wonder someone like Obama can get elected these days.

However, let me say this about your naive notions, the effects Obamanomics on this economy will hardly be a long and "messy" period, but rather an outright disaster this nation may NEVER recover from.

Describing what this moron is doing to our future as being "a long messy period" is trite and inept.

By the way, have you heard that on top of the trillions Obama and Liberal Democrats are already spending that they don't have, Medicare will now be bankrupt within 7 years? Where do you think the Democrats are going to find the money to pay for that program....hmmmmm....let us all THINK......

:rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
No surprise here; most Liberals feel this way; got Freedom? :rofl
Click to expand...

Freedom isn't good if it harms everyone in the society.

Why don't we just abandone civilization then? That would give everyone "complete freedom to everyone else" -Hobbes , but it is bad for everyone.

Luckily for us, the truely important freedoms of speach and civil liberties are alway bad for society in the long run if they are removed. And that is why we keep them. Freedom for freedom's sake is odviously foolish if there is no reason for it and it harms people.
 
nerv14 said:
Freedom isn't good if it harms everyone in the society.

Why don't we just abandone civilization then? That would give everyone "complete freedom to everyone else" -Hobbes , but it is bad for everyone.

Luckily for us, the truely important freedoms of speach and civil liberties are alway bad for society in the long run if they are removed. And that is why we keep them. Freedom for freedom's sake is odviously foolish if there is no reason for it and it harms people.
Click to expand...

Are there any facts to support such emotional hyperbole?
 
Going to be alot of these lil "not really a tax tax" in the future.


Democrats don't seem to have the ability to stand up and put their names to the major tax increases they want and likely require with their spending splurge. So as usual they pull this stuff.

See the tax isn't really a tax tax and besides its for your own good against the EVIL sugar people.

Same basic line they use against..rich people, oil companies, banks, car companies, the 'corporations'.. you name it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom